Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ron
Subject Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j
Date
Msg-id c05ff702-2573-ebb4-dfdd-66150ea2138b@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j  ("Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql@hjp.at>)
Responses Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j  (Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt@burggraben.net>)
Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j  ("Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql@hjp.at>)
Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-general
On 5/23/23 12:19, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> On 2023-05-22 21:10:48 -0500, Ron wrote:
>> On 5/22/23 18:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It looks like the assumption was that issuing link()
>>> requests in parallel wouldn't help much but just swamp your disk
>>> if they're all on the same filesystem.
>>> Maybe that could use rethinking, not sure.
>> It does need rethinking in the era of VMs and SANs. /var/lib/pgsql/15 is
>> going to be on a different LUN from /var/lib/pgsql/9.6
> You can't hardlink between different file systems.

We'd never hardlink.  Eliminates the ability to return to the old system if 
something goes wrong.

-- 
Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Peter J. Holzer"
Date:
Subject: Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j
Next
From: Christoph Moench-Tegeder
Date:
Subject: Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j